Conspiracy theories, who starts them and why?

Dox said:
And when you think about it, if they were a fossil fuel, ie made from dead animal and plant matter, how come it is found so far below the surface? Where did all teh material come from that is on top of the oil?
Click to expand...

Oil comes from the remains of plankton and simple organisms from up to 400 million years ago. That is ample time for an immense amount of sediment to be deposited.

The pressure at depth is high so oil is squeezed toward the surface. However it becomes trapped by geological structures and pools - creating a reservoir. Analysis of individual reservoirs is required to determine how many wells and their placement is required for each reservoir.
 
That doesn't explain where the material, or sediment came from that covers where the raw material (say plankton etc in your example) - many thousands of feet of it in some cases.

And if we took a sample from that material, say 200 feet down, would it contain some of that raw material, in numbers enough to convert to oil?
 
David Icke

Accurately calls, as long as twenty years ago, just about every sinister thing the parasitic elites are doing now.

Tells you that these parasitic elites are actually lizards.

There has to be a term for this.

Pro tip - read all the fucking post before commenting on all of it.
 
Loz said:
David Icke

Accurately calls, as long as twenty years ago, just about every sinister thing the parasitic elites are doing now.

Tells you that these parasitic elites are actually lizards.

There has to be a term for this.

Pro tip - read all the fucking post before commenting on all of it.
Click to expand...
Language Timothy
it doesn’t play to the end ? What am I missing
 
Markduc said:
Language Timothy
it doesn’t play to the end ? What am I missing
Click to expand...
I didn't watch the clip, I'm referring to a range of videos over the years where Icke relayed some truly lunatic conspiracy "theories". Many of which are coming true.

What do you call a guy who it transpires his ravings are 80%-plus accurate. A prophet? Dunno.
 
Last edited:
Dox said:
That doesn't explain where the material, or sediment came from that covers where the raw material (say plankton etc in your example) - many thousands of feet of it in some cases.
Click to expand...

Well it does.

With the effluxion of time sediment is naturally deposited and moved about by tides sometimes in ancient seas that no longer exist.

Think, for example, of a sharp substantial cliff face. A geologist can look back through the layers of rock tracing different climatic era's and in some places back to the extinction event that knocked off the dinosaurs.

That is not to say that the sediment comes from nowhere. It will have been transferred by climatic/oceanic/geological forces from one area to another (a zero sum if you like). The depths of oil deposits vary from the surface (eg. tar pits) to hundreds of metres down and also beyond the depth that current drilling/platform/pumping technology can reach.
 
Loz said:
David Icke

Accurately calls, as long as twenty years ago, just about every sinister thing the parasitic elites are doing now.

Tells you that these parasitic elites are actually lizards.

There has to be a term for this.

Pro tip - read all the fucking post before commenting on all of it.
Click to expand...

There is only one member that is one letter away from the shortened name of lizard :unsure:
 
I've just started reading The First Global Revolution: A Report by the Council of the Club of Rome

Recommended, if you enjoy reading about conspiracies (as written by the conspirators themselves.)
 
Dox said:
off-guardian.org

Some Call It Conspiracy Theory – Part 1

Iain Davis There are certain assumptions that are applied to anyone labelled a “conspiracy theorist”—and all of them are fallacies. Indeed, the term “conspiracy theory” is nothing more than a propa…
off-guardian.org off-guardian.org
Click to expand...

Hahaha ... oh yeah Iain Davis is a brilliant source :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:

Why not include his "Part 2" where he amongst numerous other subjects, mounts a defence of Russell Brand.

Why are conspiracy nutters so bloody verbose?? I had one in the Supreme Court arguing about the constitutionality of the Court, the fucking Magna Carta and backed by 500 pages of complete crap. Case was dismissed with costs after 30 minutes of him rambling and he was later declared a "vexatious litigant" after reference to the AG.
 
Wait.

Are deeply stupid people *still* equating a defence of the presumption of innocence with personal support for Brand?

Surely these people are too stupid to remember to breathe?
 
BobTheBounder said:
Vilifying the accused and others for their right to a defence, what kind of law do you actually practise?
Click to expand...

Sigh ... I didn't vilify Brand nor did I comment on his right to a defence (if charged - you seem to presume that).

Hugo Magnus said:
"mounts a defence of Russell Brand."

What happened to the presumption of innocence?
Click to expand...

Sigh ... "mounting a defence" is actively defending Brand, which Davis does - that has nothing to do with the presumption of innocence.

Loz said:
Wait.

Are deeply stupid people *still* equating a defence of the presumption of innocence with personal support for Brand?

Surely these people are too stupid to remember to breathe?
Click to expand...

Sigh ... Davis defends Brand on rather spurious grounds, he is NOT defending his presumption of innocence. Christ you are from a planet where only single cell amoeba exist.

BobTheBounder said:
Hmm I wonder what the WA BAR would think that one of their associates had such a distain for law! 🤪
Click to expand...

The Bar would be disinterested in confected silliness ... as I am you cad.
 
As you would have us believe that we have misinterpreted your remarks, I can only suggest that it is down to your poor use of English. I suppose we will have to make allowances for you as we do for the other colonials.
 
Everclear said:
Hahaha ... oh yeah Iain Davis is a brilliant source :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:

Why not include his "Part 2" where he amongst numerous other subjects, mounts a defence of Russell Brand.

Why are conspiracy nutters so bloody verbose?? I had one in the Supreme Court arguing about the constitutionality of the Court, the fucking Magna Carta and backed by 500 pages of complete crap. Case was dismissed with costs after 30 minutes of him rambling and he was later declared a "vexatious litigant" after reference to the AG.
Click to expand...

Instead of attacking the author, why not...for once...point out where you believe him to be wrong?

You never do that.

You are the epitome of the weak fool who cries 'conspiracy theorist' to try to stop peoples opinions from being heard.

Pretty much the essence of Davis's article. Funny that eh?
 
funny-dog.gif
 
Everclear said:
Hahaha ... oh yeah Iain Davis is a brilliant source :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:

Why not include his "Part 2" where he amongst numerous other subjects, mounts a defence of Russell Brand.

Why are conspiracy nutters so bloody verbose?? I had one in the Supreme Court arguing about the constitutionality of the Court, the fucking Magna Carta and backed by 500 pages of complete crap. Case was dismissed with costs after 30 minutes of him rambling and he was later declared a "vexatious litigant" after reference to the AG.
Click to expand...

He doesn't mount a defence of Russell Brand at all - you, supposedly working in the field of law, should be able to see that.

The Brand situation is used as an example.

Seriously, do you actually make a living advising people on law?

This paragraph could of been written about you (replace 'Neil' with 'Everdim');

"And because that is the case, we are left with only one conclusion: Neil deliberately used a tried-and-true propaganda technique called the straw man argument. That is, he attributed preposterous beliefs to people he disagrees with in order to falsely “debunk,” with contrived ease, arguments they had never made. This technique is also called logical fallacy".

Here is part 2 for everyone to see for themselves;

iaindavis.com

Some Call It Conspiracy Theory - Part 2 - Iain Davis

The conspiracy theory label is applied by the epistemic authorities, and notably the legacy media, as a a propaganda tool. Discover how here.
iaindavis.com iaindavis.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom